CHARLES BEAMS spoke of The Real Story 2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 09-02-96
CB>Responding to a message by Dan, to Charles on ...
CB>DT>Charles, I have worked in early childhood classrooms for nearly 8
CB>years.
CB>Rookie!!  I'm about to start year number 28.  ;-)
Old Fart!!   .
CB>To clear up some confusion...
CB>You said:
CB>CB>DT>There are also games that come pre-made or ones teachers can
CB>CB>DT>make to  match letters to pictures. Alphabet boards are one
CB>CB>DT>such idea.
CB>Then I said:
CB>CB>Although this adds some variety, it seems to still represent drill
CB>CB>and  practice, which you said in a previous message, that you are
CB>CB>opposed to.   Can you reconcile the conflict?
I had meant to say there is a great deal of difference in my mind 
between drill and practice and games (and not games and worksheets like 
my post read).
CB>DT>Alphabet board are not drill and practice and are not even in the 
CB>DT>same arena.  Have you ever seen alphabet games?
CB>I have not seen alphabet boards.  Could you describe them?
I am referring to a number of board games which include the very popular 
abc bingo games.  For many children who don't know their abc's this is a 
fun way to _keep_ _their_ _attention_ while teaching them letter 
recognition.  Those that know their abc's enjoy the game reinforce their 
knowledge.  I have letter match games where the letters are make of 
plastic and the children have to find all the "P" and put them in the 
right box.  Visual discrimination skills are important to letter 
recognition and with a matching games such as the one described a child 
can work alone our with a friend.  We have a variety abc puzzles that 
the children enjoy.  There are more examples but you get the idea.  I 
also do direct teaching (which would be more like drill & practice of 
the "old days").  I hole up the alphabet card which has the letter on it 
and a picture of an object that begins with that letter.  We say the 
letter, name the picture, and say the sound.  It only takes about 2-3 
mins but we do it nearly every day (beginning in January).  I use it as 
a transitional activity. 
There are also songs that teach sounds (I only use one).  I read big 
books and we discuss letters.  We find letters in our names and see for 
example how many children's names begin with the same letters.  I write 
every day and model writing conventions (such as capitol letters at the 
beginning of the sentence, spaces between words, commas, periods, 
exclamation points!
I could go on about this but I will stop here.  These activities really 
do teach kids letters and sounds.  I usually begin to see many children 
becoming phonemically aware by January.  Some children know most of the 
letter sounds by the time I begin a (somewhat) formal phonics teaching 
activity. I always have children who know all their letter sounds by the 
end of the school year.  I know they did not know them at the beginning 
because I test all the kids.  I see progress on report cards each 
quarter for the majority of the kids.  There is usually a growth spurt 
around March.  It amazes me...
 
CB>DT>Children learning concepts in natural ways as opposed to an
CB>DT>artificial and contrived approach that has little meaning
CB>DT>attached to it seems to make more sense to me.  Why it is
CB>DT>you can't see that?
CB>Well, I'm cynical, as usual.  There's a big push on at the middle
CB>school  level to get kids to do "real life" problem solving instead
CB>of contrived  word problems as has been the practice in the past.
CB>So, how do we go  about making learning real and meaningful? Do we
CB>design a project for  the kids in which they are to survey the
CB>community attitudes on smoking,  compile the data, figure the
CB>percents and the statistics, and publish a  report?  How real life is
CB>that for most of our kids who'll never do another survey/statistical
CB>analysis in their lives?  I don't think we  can make school "real
CB>life" - school is, in and of itself, a contrived  social institution.
CB>Because we are teaching facts and skills to a group  of children
CB>whose future is completely unknown, we can't possibly make  education
CB>a "real" experience for each one of them.
I don't think all "contrived" learning is bad.  I don't think that there 
is a need to think filter every thing we do through the "is this real 
life to kids?"  There should be a balance maybe?
CB>Having said all of that, please explain to me how an alphabet board
CB>is a  "natural" process for learning but paper and pencil work is
CB>artificial?   And remember you're talking to a guy who has pushed
CB>pencils around on  paper all his life, but has never even touched an
CB>alphabet board.
Remember you are speaking to an early childhood educator.  Many of my 
students cannot even hold a pencil correctly.  They have very weak grips 
and cannot write anyway.  Pen and paper is much more abstract than a 
game.  Games can engage a child and inspire interest.  A game is 
"natural" because it is natural for children to play.  Research (tons of 
it) clearly show that children learn best through play.  It's an 
undisputed fact (which you may now dispute  . 
Now upper grades is a different story and since I have never taught an 
upper grade I can't comment much here.  It would seem to me more 
appropriate for a middle-schooler to use a pencil and paper than it 
would for a kindergartner.
CB>DT>Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order.
CB>Been to that workshop, done the activities and got the t-shirt.  My 
CB>cynicism is not without foundation.  As one of the more active,
CB>involved  teachers in my district, I get to attend lots of workshops
CB>and the guy  (I wish I could remember his name!)
Nasbitt?
 
CB>Bill Daggett is the newest fad around here.  Have you seen him?  
No...
CB>DT>But you are not a 5 year old child.  Have you ever read Piaget?
CB>No, but have read what several others have written about him, and his
CB>theories.  Does he have anything to say about 5-year old children not
CB>being ready to use paper and pencil?
You mean directly?  I would have to look it up.  I don't think that it 
is too difficult to read Piaget (and others) and understand that a 5 
year old cannot possibly gain as much understanding from pencil/paper 
learning.  (I would hold to the idea that little *significant* learning 
can take place with pencil/paper learning....we would have to be talking 
about worksheets and workbooks here and even the National Association 
for the Education of Young Children condemns the practice.)
I understand that you have seen a lot in your 27 years and I have heard 
others speak of things that come and go.  I do believe that the many 
ideas that have come and gone were responses to the call for improved 
results.  Has there ever been a time in our country's educational 
history where we had it "just right?"  
As for changing the educational system, don't you think that it needs 
some changes now?  Perhaps we are in a state of flux?  As for new 
learning theories I think it is true when one says that we know much 
more today on how children learn than we did 20 years ago.  There has 
been a great deal of brain research and many conclusions were drawn from 
these studies that helped shape our current direction.  Change is slow 
and perhaps were in a transitional moment.  I do not know...
Not everything new is a fad....WL has been around for nearly 20 years.
CB>I like kids - and the older I get, the more I like them (though I
CB>have  lost a little patience over the years ).  After trying a lot
CB>of  different things, I know what works best.  I don't want to waste
CB>the  kids' time with stuff that's all fluff and no substance.  I'm
CB>willing to  change when I see some value in it - 
I like what you say here and agree that experienced teachers do know 
what works and what doesn't.  I think experience is an important.  One 
teacher/researcher I have mentioned here is Regie Routman.  She has 
taught for 20+ years and used to teach reading "the old fashioned way."  
She slowly changed her thinking and is an advocate of WL.  Her books are 
an interesting read.  She is a reading specialist and she says WL 
produces results.  
CB>There are so many others - I can't remember them all.  None of them
CB>are  still with us.  Research shows that the kids who do best in
CB>school watch  the least TV and do the most homework (drill and
CB>practice). 
Yes...the home then is an important partner in a student's education.  
Students do  best when schools have a staff that works
CB>together and when schools set  high standards.  And, I suspect, that
CB>schools do best when they don't  jump on every single teaching fad
CB>that happens to wander by.
Makes sense to me....
CB>Sure.  Science is a hands on subject, but I don't believe for even
CB>one  minute that the science done is school is any more "real life"
CB>than the  artificial math problems about the two trains.
Math can be hands on too...
CB>DT>Just to be certain there is no misunderstanding I retract my
CB>DT>statements  regarding ALL Dan (should be worksheets) being a no-no 
(If I ever said all)
CB>DT>and I agree that  some Dan( should be worksheets) are justified.  
Whatever I do in my
CB>DT>teaching I always ask  myself "What is my purpose in doing this
CB>DT>activity?" and "Is there a  better way to do this that will engage
CB>DT>the learner in a more meaningful  way?"  
CB>Interesting.  Do you use macros for some common phrases?  In this 
CB>particular case you've used "Dan" several times in place of "work 
CB>sheets" and I've noticed similar patterns in other messages.  Just
CB>curious.
Honestly it's my spell checker!  If a word is questionable and I know I 
typed that same word several times, I have to individually correct each 
word.  I have tried a "replace all" and it replaces words that I didn't 
want replaced.  I did an "ignore all" on my name and it did funny things 
to other words replacing them with my name.  Ahhhhhh  I don't even know 
what a macro is...
Dan
CMPQwk 1.42 445p
MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL. Send $20 for more info.
* ++++++  *
     _   /|    ACK!
     \'o.O'   /
     =(__)+
       U
 
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------